State v. Neely’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently May 2014
1 federal appellate · 8 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Ekberg v. United States · State v. Vigil · State v. Peppers · State v. Neely · Scofield v. JW Jones Construction Company
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 5-801 states, in relevant part: Modification of sentence. A motion to reduce a sentence may be filed within ninety (90) days after the sentence is imposed, or within ninety (90) days after receipt by the court of a mandate issued upon affirmance of the judgment or dismissal of the appeal, or within ninety (90) days after entry of any order or judgment of the appellate court denying review of, or having the effect of upholding, a judgment of conviction.... The court shall determine the motion within ninety (90) days after the date it is filed or the motion is deemed to be denied.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“severely undercuts the rationale of the majority's opinion in Neely I.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Neely v. Newton
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.